NDP leadership race #127

205 posts / 0 new
Last post
Howard

Toronto Star wrote:
Rival candidates have criticized Mulcair for suggesting the party needs to change fundamentally to achieve greater success, but Mulcair has countered the perception that he is trying to move the party to the centre by saying it needs to reach out beyond its traditional base and bring the centre to the party.

 

And Broadbent contradicts Broadbent (on modernization, good and bad)

Toronto Star wrote:
Broadbent believes the party has already gone through modernization under the leadership of the late Jack Layton and noted that Topp was a key part of his team.

"I supported Jack for leader because I saw him as a modernizer," said Broadbent, who was NDP leader from 1975 to 1989. "He had a great deal of emphasis on modern techniques and fundraising and organization for the party to build membership ... There is a kind of either straw man being set up by Tom to attack or it's just simply misleading and one of the reasons I supported Brian Topp is I saw him doing this. I saw him being instrumental as a modernizer."

socialdemocrati...

I'm starting to sound like a broken record, saying you guys are dramatizing this a bit too much...

But this is still a very amicable, peaceful race from where I sit. The relative peacefulness makes Ed Broadbent's interview seem like a huge event, but it's mostly a repetition of the obvious, and not much of an attack on Mulcair at all.

There are a ton of worse things that happened in the U.S. Democratic primaries four years ago. If he really hated Mulcair, he'd say "he's unfit to be prime minister" or "he would be a disaster for the party". He would point to some huge issue of principle that Mulcair is violating.

The worst thing he could say was that Topp is more specific about taxes whereas Mulcair is more vague. Maybe I'm biased, because I agree with Topp and Broadbent too. But it doesn't make it an attack. It just means he trusts Brian more, and has more confidence in him to maintain those principles.

We'll still come together when the race is over. Topp, Mulcair, or otherwise.

Howard

More mud:

Toronto Star wrote:
"It is indicative that something like 80 to 90 per cent of the old caucus is supporting other candidates than Tom," Broadbent said. "It's one thing to be forceful and direct and both Tom and Brian are that, they're both bilingual, but in terms of demonstrated capacity at team-building, I think Brian is the better candidate."

Broadbent also took Mulcair to task for suggesting that he more instrumental in the Quebec breakthrough that saw 59 NDP MPs elected in the province last year than any of the strategists running the show from Ottawa.

"That is factually wrong and I know it's wrong," said Broadbent, explaining that Topp and Raymond Guardia, who is now Topp's campaign manager, deserve more of the credit.

 

It is indicative that Brian Topp doesn't have any more support among the old caucus than Mulcair. It is indicative that Paul Dewar has support among the old caucus. It is indicative that only 2 MPs from the old caucus support Peggy Nash. It is indicative that it is indicative...

algomafalcon

Howard wrote:

More mud:

Toronto Star wrote:
"It is indicative that something like 80 to 90 per cent of the old caucus is supporting other candidates than Tom," Broadbent said. "It's one thing to be forceful and direct and both Tom and Brian are that, they're both bilingual, but in terms of demonstrated capacity at team-building, I think Brian is the better candidate."

Broadbent also took Mulcair to task for suggesting that he more instrumental in the Quebec breakthrough that saw 59 NDP MPs elected in the province last year than any of the strategists running the show from Ottawa.

"That is factually wrong and I know it's wrong," said Broadbent, explaining that Topp and Raymond Guardia, who is now Topp's campaign manager, deserve more of the credit.

 

It is indicative that Brian Topp doesn't have any more support among the old caucus than Mulcair. It is indicative that Paul Dewar has support among the old caucus. It is indicative that only 2 MPs from the old caucus support Peggy Nash. It is indicative that it is indicative...

 

As my father used to say, "figures don't lie, but liars figure". (they twist the numbers to make their point)

 

Howard

TheArchitect wrote:

The point Paul's making is that while a lot of people might see advantages in electing Mulcair, he might be seen as a more conventional Ottawa politician, and might alienate voters who support the NDP because they believe, as Jack said, "that Ottawa's broken and it's time for us to fix it."

I think it's a good point.

Let's take a little walk down memory lane. The NDP was running on "Ottawa's broken and it's time for us to fix it" at the beginning of the 2011 campaign (i.e. first two weeks of April) and was slipping in the polls (link) and the media was writing articles about how the NDP was having trouble getting people to events. The Quebec slogan was "Travaillons ensemble." As the Quebec slogan caught on, the NDP's poll numbers rose and the NDP switched over heavily to the line "together we can do this," a translation of the Quebec slogan massed together with Obama's "yes we can." Which slogan worked better? Which one closed out the campaign? Which one was designed in Quebec using Mulcair's approach (discussed in the last debate) and which one was written by Brian Topp at Great Eggspectations on Laurier (link p. 57)?

Howard

Howard wrote:

TheArchitect wrote:

The point Paul's making is that while a lot of people might see advantages in electing Mulcair, he might be seen as a more conventional Ottawa politician, and might alienate voters who support the NDP because they believe, as Jack said, "that Ottawa's broken and it's time for us to fix it."

I think it's a good point.

Let's take a little walk down memory lane. The NDP was running on "Ottawa's broken and it's time for us to fix it" at the beginning of the 2011 campaign (i.e. first two weeks of April) and was slipping in the polls (link) and the media was writing articles about how the NDP was having trouble getting people to events. The Quebec slogan was "Travaillons ensemble." As the Quebec slogan caught on, the NDP's poll numbers rose and the NDP switched over heavily to the line "together we can do this," a translation of the Quebec slogan massed together with Obama's "yes we can." Which slogan worked better? Which one closed out the campaign? Which one was designed in Quebec using Mulcair's approach (discussed in the last debate) and which one was written by Brian Topp at Great Eggspectations on Laurier (link p. 57)?

Another interesting thing about the second link above is that Brian Topp spends several pages writing about the NDP's breakthrough in Quebec, and mentions Mulcair twice: once to say that Layton recruited him and that Mulcair had appeal and another time to say Mulcair was high profile. Otherwise, the reason the NDP won Quebec was because Raymond LaGuardia stayed with the NDP for 30 years (and presumably also Brian Topp). Now which story do you find more credible? A campaign manager that showed up in the 80s, toiled imperceptibly for 30 years, or the Quebec lieutenant who was in the Quebec media every day for 5 years, recruited, and campaigned for almost all the Quebec candidates? Clearly Mulcair="high profile" window dressing.

Policywonk

Howard wrote:

From 2007-2011, the NDP has had 35 different MPs (excluding Jack Layton, Thomas Mulcair, Nathan Cullen, Paul Dewar, Peggy Nash, and Niki Ashton)

Mulcair has received the endorsement of 6 of them : David Christopherson, Wayne Marston, Jack Harris, Don Davies, Glenn Thibeault, John Rafferty

Topp has received the endorsement of 7 of them: Judy W-L, Bill Siksay, Dawn Black, Jean Crowder, Yvon Godin, Libby Davies, Chris Charlton

The following MPs have said they will stay neutral: Pat Martin, Olivia Chow, Peter Stoffer

So of the MPs from 2007-2011, Mulcair has the support of 17% or 19% of the non-neutral, Brian Topp has the support of 20% or 22%.

There is exactly 1 MPs worth of difference between the two candidates and Ed Broadbent cut Mulcair's support in half for his quote.

You could also take this information to mean that almost 80% of the MPs from 2007-2011 are not supporting Brian Topp. Broadbent has the right to support his candidate in the way he choses, just as we have the right to respectfully point out that he has his facts wrong.

KenS

Is this for real- that there are over 100 posts in a few hours?

And what a bunch of overblown histrionics about Ed's interview.

1.] The grandees of thie party did not decide for us who is going to win. Unfortunately, people are not going to accept that. The attitude is not a determining factor in where we go, but it doesnt help.

2.] Apparently there is going to be a party unity problem if Mulcair doesnt win. [See histrionics.]

3.] Ironically, Mulcairites see Ed and the Topp campaign and the generalized anti-Mulcair as the problem in how things are after. But not to worry- your personal opinions of Ed and the Topp campaign are valid, but they are not a reasonanble basis for worrying about damage to the party or party unity. If Mulcair wins, that will pass.

Howard

josh wrote:
I see the Mulcairites are out in full force doing what they do best, spinning and smearing.

I always look forward to your substantive contributions to the discussion josh Laughing

knownothing knownothing's picture

I love and respect Ed Broadbent, but when he came out for Topp before anyone else had announced their candidacy and said that Topp was the only one capable of leading us to government, I knew there was something fishy going on.

It is one of two things:

1)He really believes Topp is the only one who can lead the NDP. This is dead wrong

2)He is being manipulated to say these ridiculous absolute statements, in which case I feel terrible for him, and hatred for Topp if this is the case

josh

Howard wrote:

Another interesting thing about the second link above is that Brian Topp spends several pages writing about the NDP's breakthrough in Quebec, and mentions Mulcair twice: once to say that Layton recruited him and that Mulcair had appeal and another time to say Mulcair was high profile. Otherwise, the reason the NDP won Quebec was because Raymond LaGuardia stayed with the NDP for 30 years (and presumably also Brian Topp). Now which story do you find more credible? A campaign manager that showed up in the 80s, toiled imperceptibly for 30 years, or the Quebec lieutenant who was in the Quebec media every day for 5 years, recruited, and campaigned for almost all the Quebec candidates? Clearly Mulcair="high profile" window dressing.

Maybe I missed something, was Jack Layton not the NDP candidate, and star, of the last election? Because if you believe some of these posts it was Tom Mulcair who was responsible for winning all those seats.

knownothing knownothing's picture

josh wrote:
Howard wrote:

Another interesting thing about the second link above is that Brian Topp spends several pages writing about the NDP's breakthrough in Quebec, and mentions Mulcair twice: once to say that Layton recruited him and that Mulcair had appeal and another time to say Mulcair was high profile. Otherwise, the reason the NDP won Quebec was because Raymond LaGuardia stayed with the NDP for 30 years (and presumably also Brian Topp). Now which story do you find more credible? A campaign manager that showed up in the 80s, toiled imperceptibly for 30 years, or the Quebec lieutenant who was in the Quebec media every day for 5 years, recruited, and campaigned for almost all the Quebec candidates? Clearly Mulcair="high profile" window dressing.

Maybe I missed something, was Jack Layton not the NDP candidate, and star, of the last election? Because if you believe some of these posts it was Tom Mulcair who was responsible for winning all those seats.

It wasn't all Jack or all Tom. It was a combination of many factors. Decline of the Bloc, Lib scandal, Tory stupidity

Howard

josh wrote:
Howard wrote:

Another interesting thing about the second link above is that Brian Topp spends several pages writing about the NDP's breakthrough in Quebec, and mentions Mulcair twice: once to say that Layton recruited him and that Mulcair had appeal and another time to say Mulcair was high profile. Otherwise, the reason the NDP won Quebec was because Raymond LaGuardia stayed with the NDP for 30 years (and presumably also Brian Topp). Now which story do you find more credible? A campaign manager that showed up in the 80s, toiled imperceptibly for 30 years, or the Quebec lieutenant who was in the Quebec media every day for 5 years, recruited, and campaigned for almost all the Quebec candidates? Clearly Mulcair="high profile" window dressing.

Maybe I missed something, was Jack Layton not the NDP candidate, and star, of the last election? Because if you believe some of these posts it was Tom Mulcair who was responsible for winning all those seats.

Do you know French josh, because it was completely impossible to follow the NDP in the Quebec media last election without being continually bombarded by dozens of campaign stops and announcements by Mulcair? There was one or more virtually every day. Mulcair spent like 6 days in his riding the whole campaign! Tom Mulcair was not responsible for winning all those seats but he played a big part in it.

Topp got Raymond LaGuardia's endorsement and Mulcair got over half the Quebec caucus'!

Howard

flight from kamakura wrote:
it's not helpful to call people with different opinions "losers". 

+1

Howard

josh wrote:
The party, or the idea of a social democratic party, is bigger than any leadership election, or any candidate for that matter.  Clearly based on his interview, Broadbent fears that Mulcair will be the Tony Blair of the NDP.  His fears are well founded.

Founded on what?

josh

Howard wrote:

josh wrote:
The party, or the idea of a social democratic party, is bigger than any leadership election, or any candidate for that matter.  Clearly based on his interview, Broadbent fears that Mulcair will be the Tony Blair of the NDP.  His fears are well founded.

Founded on what?

We've gone through this a million times. I've quoted the language and code words used about not being beholden to unions and the need to "renew" the way many other social democratic parties have. If you dispute it, take it up with your candidate. He's the one who said it.

Howard

KenS wrote:

2.] Apparently there is going to be a party unity problem if Mulcair doesnt win. [See histrionics.]

Puhlease. I have been categorical in that I would support any of the candidates as leader. Have you heard otherwise from any other babblers?

Howard

josh wrote:
Howard wrote:

josh wrote:
The party, or the idea of a social democratic party, is bigger than any leadership election, or any candidate for that matter.  Clearly based on his interview, Broadbent fears that Mulcair will be the Tony Blair of the NDP.  His fears are well founded.

Founded on what?

We've gone through this a million times. I've quoted the language and code words used about not being beholden to unions and the need to "renew" the way many other social democratic parties have. If you dispute it, take it up with your candidate. He's the one who said it.

Oh josh, why must you josh around Smile

Howard

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
Ed Broadbent said he's not against modernizing. His beef with Mulcair is that he's suggesting the party hasn't modernized, not that Ed was against it.

Mulcair said that in one interview with the Toronto Star and subsequently scaled it back or clarified that he didn't mean that the NDP hadn't modernised but that it needed to continue the process started under Jack Layton.

As for Topp's tax plan representing modernisation, since when did "tax the rich" because a new NDP idea?

Brachina

algomafalcon wrote:

flight from kamakura wrote:

broadbent's interview really isn't so bad, i really like the guy: http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Politics/1244504890/ID=2210497285

wish he wouldn't go after mulcair, but i can't blame him.  it's healthy, and it's not really as bad as the print media suggested.

 

Not according to the commentators on Power and Politics - including Gerald Caplan who politely disagreed with Broadbent's intervention.

A lot of them were stating that the worst of Broadbent's attacks were directed at Mulcair's character - that he "can't be trusted" and "no one can work with him" (or something to that effect) Basically they were stating the worst of Broadbent's statements were his negative personal attacks.

Flanagan joked that Harper had called him up to prepare attack ads against Mulcair baseed on Ed Broadbent's quotes. (just a joke right now but that certainly sounds like something the Conservatives could do).

 

 

It sounds like to me Ed realized he crossed a line, not just trying to stop Mulcair, but actually hurting the party, aka giving Harper material he may actually use. Thankful it just paper that got the worst, not video with the original, and Ed was wise enough to dial it down when he realized he went to far.

It a an important race, alot at stake, and passions are high, and people sometimes say stuff they don't mean cause they want thier guy to win.

Brachina

josh wrote:
Howard wrote:

josh wrote:
The party, or the idea of a social democratic party, is bigger than any leadership election, or any candidate for that matter.  Clearly based on his interview, Broadbent fears that Mulcair will be the Tony Blair of the NDP.  His fears are well founded.

Founded on what?

We've gone through this a million times. I've quoted the language and code words used about not being beholden to unions and the need to "renew" the way many other social democratic parties have. If you dispute it, take it up with your candidate. He's the one who said it.

I think Josh is writing the sequel to the Divinci Code. Its called the Mulcair Code. Tom Hanks has already argeed to star in it and Al Pacino is playing Mulcair ;p

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Broadbent is at risk for hurting his own legacy if he doesn't rein it in. If he keeps this up, he hurts the party. Maybe even hurts Topp's chances.

flight from kamakura

hhahhahahah!!!  surprised not christopher walken or harvey keitel as mulcair!

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Brachina wrote:
I think Josh is writing the sequel to the Divinci Code. Its called the Mulcair Code. Tom Hanks has already argeed to star in it and Al Pacino is playing Mulcair ;p

Hanks is busy with the Obama campaign.

Gaian

Boom Boom wrote:

Broadbent is at risk for hurting his own legacy if he doesn't rein it in. If he keeps this up, he hurts the party. Maybe even hurts Topp's chances.

Topp has chances?

flight from kamakura

the mulcair code!

tom hanks = brian topp

christopher walken = thomas mulcair

meryl streep  = peggy nash

woody harrelson = nathan cullen

steve buschemi = martin singh

sean connery = ed broadbent

hilary swank = a combined paul dewar/nikki ashton character

morgan freeman = a re-tooled romeo, now from the deep south rather than extreme north

algomafalcon

Brachina wrote:
algomafalcon wrote:

It sounds like to me Ed realized he crossed a line, not just trying to stop Mulcair, but actually hurting the party, aka giving Harper material he may actually use. Thankful it just paper that got the worst, not video with the original, and Ed was wise enough to dial it down when he realized he went to far. It a an important race, alot at stake, and passions are high, and people sometimes say stuff they don't mean cause they want thier guy to win.

Maybe. I guess you could give Broadbent credit for "kicking it up a notch" (as far as increasing media attention to the race). I don't think he has really helped Brian Topp with the way he spoke out. I guess Ed just felt he could influence the vote, but it probably won't sway a lot of members - those who have been paying attention to the race and have probably already decided.

On a positive note, I saw an interview of Nicole Turmel and the interviewew really gave her a nice and gracious send off. Nicole was very positive in everything she said and I think she is certainly leaving her post on a very high note. She really emphasized the "team-building" part of her job as being very important. I think that the caucus has been quite disciplined over the period of her leadership. Maybe there is still more she can do that way after the leadership convention?

 

janfromthebruce

I watched the interview too and Ed talked about how Mulcair is overly critical of the staff in the federal office and believes that is not right - essentially they are like civil servants. I agree with that. I think it's poor political judgement to publicly critize your staff (and they are all our staff in the party) to score political points. Which is why some suggest that if Mulcair wins he will sweep out our long term staff who were central to getting us to official opposition and bring in his own crew - whoever they may be.

Incidently, I am not a loser.

 

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

The media reading of Broadbent is far worse than anything Ed actually said.

Watching the CBC interview confirms that.

Ed Broadbent said he's not against modernizing. His beef with Mulcair is that he's suggesting the party hasn't modernized, not that Ed was against it. The NDP has undergone changes in language, changes in fundraising, changes in organization.

Ed is really specific about his criticism of Mulcair -- half of his beef is that Mulcair's criticisms of the party have been unfair. He doesn't like that Mulcair said the NDP was too centralized, and responds that the Quebec strategy was developed in coordination with Ottawa. He thinks Mulcair's comment about  "boilerplate" is a charicature of the party who helped him, and "modernizing" is something we already did.

The other half of his criticism is that Mulcair is vague. If we've already modernized, then what does Mulcair want us to do? Ed points out that Brian Topp has a specific vision of how to modernize the party, using taxes as an example. Ed thinks Mulcair is making a mistake by avoiding this issue. Ed says that you don't avoid the issue just to avoid being attacked, because that could actually lose credibility with the voters.

He still praises Mulcair: he's successful, forceful, someone who can take on Harper. But he says that Topp's stance on taxes and equality is more clear, and he has a better idea of what Brian Topp wants to do.

Considering Topp has been in the party's inner circle for such a long time, Broadbent's comments that he trusts Topp's vision more is completely fair, and completely unsurprising.

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Gaian wrote:
Boom Boom wrote:

Broadbent is at risk for hurting his own legacy if he doesn't rein it in. If he keeps this up, he hurts the party. Maybe even hurts Topp's chances.

Topp has chances?

Sure. He could still win as the anti-Mulcair candidate if all the other candidates throw their votes behind him. Singh would probably go to Mulcair. But if Mulcair has the most votes on the first and second ballots but not enough to win overall, then we could see Cullen, Nash, Dewar and maybe Ashton move to Topp. If that happens, you will have a very badly divided party.

Hoodeet

That would be exploited no end by the other parties and the MSM.  I hope it doesn't happen.

quizzical

Mr Broadbent did a lot of damage with his attacks IMV and I will run as far away as possible from anyone he endorsed, or endorses in the future. And if he is the NDP's elderstatesman the NDP should run far and fast from him.

...glad I am voting for none of those whose supporters who are so busy attacking others here.

Fuckity fuck talk about shooting your own alleged party in the foot.

Howard

Howard wrote:

More mud:

Toronto Star wrote:
Broadbent also took Mulcair to task for suggesting that he more instrumental in the Quebec breakthrough that saw 59 NDP MPs elected in the province last year than any of the strategists running the show from Ottawa.

"That is factually wrong and I know it's wrong," said Broadbent, explaining that Topp and Raymond Guardia, who is now Topp's campaign manager, deserve more of the credit.

Given his difficulties with French, I should probably take it easy on Ed too. Who knows if he has been able to follow the Quebec media, despite his stint at Rights and Democracy in Montreal.

In this leadership race, the Quebec media has been categorical about the importance of Mulcair's role in the 2011 breakthrough.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

......................

Gaian

Boom Boom wrote:

Gaian wrote:
Boom Boom wrote:

Broadbent is at risk for hurting his own legacy if he doesn't rein it in. If he keeps this up, he hurts the party. Maybe even hurts Topp's chances.

Topp has chances?

Sure. He could still win as the anti-Mulcair candidate if all the other candidates throw their votes behind him. Singh would probably go to Mulcair. But if Mulcair has the most votes on the first and second ballots but not enough to win overall, then we could see Cullen, Nash, Dewar and maybe Ashton move to Topp. If that happens, you will have a very badly divided party.

You are right, of course.
And it would signal that the division is along cultural lines. There would be NO recovery.

TheArchitect

Gaian wrote:
Boom Boom wrote:

Gaian wrote:
Topp has chances?

Sure. He could still win as the anti-Mulcair candidate if all the other candidates throw their votes behind him. Singh would probably go to Mulcair. But if Mulcair has the most votes on the first and second ballots but not enough to win overall, then we could see Cullen, Nash, Dewar and maybe Ashton move to Topp. If that happens, you will have a very badly divided party.

You are right, of course. And it would signal that the division is along cultural lines. There would be NO recovery.

What exactly do you mean by "along cultural lines"?

quizzical

Wonderful just wonderful most people would not have known if Muclair did any of what Ed accuses him of in such a nasty public way and you just compounded it. NICE.  This is nasty politics and is doing no favours for any Canadian let alone any NDP. This stuff is what makes people turn OFF of politics.

I am so glad Nathan and Niki have not stooped to any of this.

janfromthebruce wrote:
I watched the interview too and Ed talks about how Mulcair is overly critical of the staff in the federal office and believes that is not right - essentially they are like civil servants. I agree with that. I think it's poor political judgement to publicly critize your staff (and they are all our staff in the party) to score political points. Which is why some suggest that if Mulcair wins he will sweep out our long term staff who were central to getting us to official opposition and bring in his own crew - whoever they may be.

Incidently, I am not a loser.

socialdemocrati...

Howard wrote:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:
Ed Broadbent said he's not against modernizing. His beef with Mulcair is that he's suggesting the party hasn't modernized, not that Ed was against it.

Mulcair said that in one interview with the Toronto Star and subsequently scaled it back or clarified that he didn't mean that the NDP hadn't modernised but that it needed to continue the process started under Jack Layton.

As for Topp's tax plan representing modernisation, since when did "tax the rich" because a new NDP idea?

All I'm saying is that this is 90% the positioning of the contest, and 10% an actual disagreement.

The amount of policy daylight between Mulcair and Topp is small. Both are social democrats. Both frequently cite the 2011 platform. Both want to modernize. Both have cited governments in Manitoba and Saskatchewan as models of fiscal responsibility.

Topp is the only candidate (other than Cullen) to suggest a tax increase. Modernization doesn't necessarily mean new so much as keeping up with the times. Ed Broadbent wisely pointed out: when the left (or pseudo-left) parties in the U.S. and France are both advancing higher taxes on the rich, you want to get ahead on this issue. Putting taxes back on the table allows us to modernize for 2015 AND stay true to our principles.

Broadbent points out that it's not even like Mulcair has come out adamantly against a tax increase, and concedes that some people actually believe that Mulcair might be for a tax increase deep down somewhere. But he disagrees with Mulcair's approach of avoiding it.

The only other thing...Mulcair HAS mildly (unintentionally?) insulted the party a few times, saying we're too centralized, not modern, stuck with boilerplate... These comments might endear him to the mainstream media, but it does kind of slag a lot of people who have put in a lot of work to improve the NDP's standing. It also puts Mulcair in direct contrast to the insiders of the party, a lot of whom are responsible for our success thus far.

These are small things in the grand policy platform we will run on in 2015.

But in a leadership contest, they're monumental. Don't be surprised when the media, or even the surrogates, make these sound like life-or-death choices.

socialdemocrati...

My overall point... the party is NOT imploding. We're having a leadership contest.

Ed Broadbent's points might strongly advocate for Topp, and say that Mulcair is a weaker candidate. But that's what's supposed to happen in a leadership contest. We all talk about who the best candidate is, in our minds.

Amazed that some Mulcair supporters can dish it out, but overreact to the most reasonable of criticisms.

Take a close reading. These aren't "attacks". They're not the kind of thing that will prevent Broadbent from supporting Mulcair, or prevent Mulcair from supporting Topp.

The only way this harms party unity is if the sewing circle starts gossiping and making it bigger than it is. If we start taking this stuff personally.

Hunky_Monkey

Nice to see Alexa take issue with Ed's comments!

Panna

janfromthebruce wrote:

I watched the interview too and Ed talked about how Mulcair is overly critical of the staff in the federal office and believes that is not right - essentially they are like civil servants. I agree with that. I think it's poor political judgement to publicly critize your staff (and they are all our staff in the party) to score political points. Which is why some suggest that if Mulcair wins he will sweep out our long term staff who were central to getting us to official opposition and bring in his own crew - whoever they may be.

Incidently, I am not a loser.

 

 

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

Do you not think it's poor political judgement to publicly criticize a running fellow ndp member to score political points?

Incidently.  I am a new NDP member.  I am not one of 'your crew' and found that comment very elitist.  The NDP is not such a welcoming party after all to members who fall outside the standard idealogue.

Gaian

Where and when please?

quizzical

"sewing circle" what the fuck is that?

not a inside NDPer here having only joined last month to support 1  person mainly and I do not believe in my world view that someone with the label "NDP elderstateman"  should be endorsing anyone let alone trashing a sitting MP. But that is just my world view.

And as I said is the stuff that drives people AWAY from politics not towards it, nothing like being a nasty conservative type person...and here I thought the NDP, according to my mom, is different. Guess not so and even worse you seem to think we should just shrug it off and stop "gossiping" about it.

 

And I took your nasty bigoted comments personally.

Gaian

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Nice to see Alexa take issue with Ed's comments!

And old Ed is saying: “I want to be fair to Tom,” Broadbent said. “I’m not saying he said it’s going to be a Liberal party, but he did talk about moving to the middle. What he means by that, I don’t know, but I do know where Brian Topp stands, which is to keep the party left-of-centre with relevant, innovative policy and that’s what I think needs to be done.”

"What he means by that I don't know, but..."

But by golly I'm agin it...

Gaian

quizzical wrote:

"sewing circle" what the fuck is that?

not a inside NDPer here having only joined last month to support 1  person mainly and I do not believe in my world view that someone with the label "NDP elderstateman"  should be endorsing anyone let alone trashing a sitting MP. But that is just my world view.

And as I said is the stuff that drives people AWAY from politics not towards it, nothing like being a nasty conservative type person...and here I thought the NDP, according to my mom, is different. Guess not so and even worse you seem to think we should just shrug it off and stop "gossiping" about it.

 

And I certainly took your nasty bigoted comments personally

That is obviously not a universal view within the NDP

And your mom is right! It's just that you have fallen among skeptics and non-believers. :)

janfromthebruce

There has been a strong rumour, previously mentioned in some of these leadership threads that because Mulcair has on several occasions crtized the office staff in Ottawa that he will get rid of them and bring in his staff. It's not elitest and sorry if it was interpreted that way.

oh, and I'm not interested in playing anymore.

 

 

Panna wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

I watched the interview too and Ed talked about how Mulcair is overly critical of the staff in the federal office and believes that is not right - essentially they are like civil servants. I agree with that. I think it's poor political judgement to publicly critize your staff (and they are all our staff in the party) to score political points. Which is why some suggest that if Mulcair wins he will sweep out our long term staff who were central to getting us to official opposition and bring in his own crew - whoever they may be.

Incidently, I am not a loser.

 

 

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

Do you not think it's poor political judgement to publicly criticize a running fellow ndp member to score political points?

Incidently.  I am a new NDP member.  I am not one of 'your crew' and found that comment very elitist.  The NDP is not such a welcoming party after all to members who fall outside the standard idealogue.

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!